Unique Statistics:

open-access license: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0), a copy of which is available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Abstract

Background:

The author compares several methods to map the a priori wet tropospheric delay of GNSS signals in Egypt from the zenith direction to lower elevations.

Methods and Materials:

The author compared the following mapping techniques against ray-traced delays computed for radiosonde profiles under the assumption of spherical symmetry: Saastamoinen, Hopfield, Black, Chao, Ifadis, Herring, Niell, Moffett, Black and Eisner and UNBabc mapping functions. Radiosonde data were computed from radiosonde stations at the Egyptian stations; in the south of Egypt, near the Mediterranean Sea, and near the Red Sea over a period of 5 years (2000-2005), most of the stations launched radiosonde twice daily, every day of the year. Moreover, data is received from the Egyptian Meteorology Authority.

Results and Conclusion:

The results indicate that currently, the saastamoinen mapping function should be used for all geodetic applications in Egypt, and if necessary, the Chao and Moffett mapping functions can serve as an acceptable replacement without introducing a significant bias into the station position.

1. INTRODUCTION

The tropospheric refraction, among other error sources like the ionospheric refraction, multipath and signal obstructions, is one of the main factors limiting accuracy of the Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) measurements. Nowadays, one can observe the increasing demand of reliable, accurate and fast results from precise GNSS positioning. GNSS technique is commonly used in geodesy, land surveying, civil engineering, deformation monitoring and structural monitoring where precise, centimeter-level accuracy height of sites is often compulsory. Unfortunately, the tropospheric refraction is strongly correlated with the vertical coordinate component of a site and affects this component rather than the horizontal ones [1].

Satellite signals from GNSS satellites suffer from the influence of the Earth’s atmosphere, which deteriorates the accuracy of the obtained positions. The major part of this phenomenon is caused by the ionized part of the upper atmosphere and is termed the ionospheric refraction. Fortunately, an application of dual (or multi) frequency signals allows GNSS users to mitigate this impact [2]. Additionally, electromagnetic waves are refracted in the neutral, lower part of the Earth’s atmosphere. Influence of the neutral atmosphere is commonly referred to as the tropospheric refraction [3]. In detail, the GNSS signal slows down and its path is getting curved. By contrast to the ionospheric delay, this influence cannot be eliminated using the dual frequency relationship. It is because of non-dispersive nature of the neutral atmosphere for microwave frequencies. Changes in speed and path cause delay in travel of signal in comparison to travel in vacuum. The delay due to the tropospheric refraction may be expressed as [4]:

Dtrop = ∫ n (s) ds - ∫ ds,

(1)

where, D trop is the tropospheric delay and n (s) is the refractive index as a function of path length. It is common to divide the troposphere into hydrostatic and wet part due to the water vapor content. The tropospheric zenith total delay may be expressed as a sum of hydrostatic and wet zenith delays:

ZTD = ZHD + ZWD

(2)

where, ZTD is the zenith total delay, ZHD the zenith hydrostatic delay, and ZWD the zenith wet delay.

Significant errors may be introduced when ZTDs are mapped into slant tropospheric delays with mapping functions. Converting (mapping) zenith delays into slant delays with the use of proper and accurate mapping function is of crucial interest because for low elevation angles (<15 degrees) the slant delay is ten times larger than for zenith direction [5].

The slant total delays toward the satellite are computed using the following formula [4]:

STD (e) = ZHD × md (e) + ZWD × mw (e),

(3)

where, e is the elevation angle towards the satellite, STD (e) the slant total delay, ZHD the zenith hydrostatic delay, md (e) the mapping function for the hydrostatic delay, ZWD the zenith wet delay, and mw (e) is the mapping function for the non-hydrostatic delay.

The hydrostatic delay is caused by atmospheric gases that are in hydrostatic equilibrium. This is usually the case for dry gases and part of the water vapor. This part of the delay can very well be modeled based on the surface air pressure. The wet delay, caused by water vapor that is not in hydrostatic equilibrium, is the source of our problems. We can derive models for this delay based on the partial pressure of water vapor or relative humidity at the surface, but these models have low accuracy and need empirical constants that may vary widely with location and time of year.

Most works concerning the assessment and development of tropospheric delay models and mapping functions has been reported by Forgues [6], Mendes [7], Langely and Guo [8] and others scientists. Forgues [6] simulated the impact of 15 mapping functions on GPS positioning as a function of a large number of factors such as the elevation angle, the site location, the duration of the observation session, and the estimation of tropospheric parameters. Using the Mapping Temperature Test (Herring [9],) function as reference, she concluded that the functions by Davis et al [10], Lanyi [11], Ifadis [12], and Niell [13] performed the best for short and long baselines. Mendes [7] presents comprehensive assessment of the most significant models and mapping functions developed in the last three decades against ray tracing data from 50 stations. He optimized the performance of mapping function based on some developed models. He recommended the Saastamoinen model to be used in predicting the zenith dry and wet delay. If meteorological measurements aren’t available, He recommended Niell mapping function [13] to be used in modeling the elevation dependence of the zenith delay. If that information is available, and for elevation angle above 6°, Ifadis [12], Lanyi [11], and Herring [9] mapping functions will likely lead to identical results. For elevation angles below 6° the Lanyi mapping function [11] is no longer recommended.

Langely and Guo [8] reported on an investigation to determine the error of several mapping functions at elevation angles as low as 2° and presented a new model, UNBabc, which has better low-elevation angles performance and requires only slightly more computation time. They concluded that UNBabc is the best candidate for a Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) receiver built-in mapping function as it takes much less time to compute than Niell mapping function [13] does and has much better accuracy than Black and Eisner (B&E) [14] mapping function.

But most standard tropospheric models and mapping functions were experimentally derived using available radiosonde data, which were mostly observed on the European and North American continents. There is therefore a strong motivation to evaluate the accuracy of the current strategies proposed for wet tropospheric delay modeling especially for atmospheric conditions of Egypt.

The main research contribution from this work is the identification, classification, and comparison of alternative wet mapping function for the ray-path and the atmospheric structure employed in ray-tracing. It is a two-part contribution, parts that we now discuss. Firstly, a numerical integration based model is devoted to determine wet tropospheric delay at different zenith angles, which represent the benchmark values for the assessment of wet tropospheric delay models and mapping functions used for tropospheric modeling in GPS data in Egypt. Secondly, an assessment of ten wet mapping functions and functional formulations for describing both the elevation angle and azimuth-dependence of the wet tropospheric delay is performed. These mapping functions are Saastamoinen, Hopfield, Black, Chao, Ifadis, Herring, Niell, Moffett, Black and Eisner and UNBabc mapping functions. The basic motivation for this assessment of ten mapping functions through comparison with ray tracing through radiosonde data is determining the better wet mapping functions in the analysis of space geodetic data.

2. MAPPING FUNCTIONS

The mapping function, m (ε), is defined as the ratio of the electrical path length through the atmosphere at geometric elevation ε, to the electrical path length in the zenith direction. A mapping function is used to map the zenith delay to estimate the slant tropospheric delay. Several mapping functions have been developed in the past 20 years. The simplest mapping function is given by 1/sin(ε) [15], the cosecant of the elevation angle. In this derivation, it is assumed that spherical constant height surfaces could be approximated as planar surfaces. This is an accurate approximation only for high elevation angles and with a small degree of bending. More complex mapping functions have been developed, and different mapping functions may be used for the hydrostatic versus wet delays. Brief descriptions of the main features of various wet mapping functions are given in the following sub-sections.

2.1. Saastamoinen Model

Saastamoinen developed a total delay model for the troposphere from which a “neutral” mapping function can be derived. It is given here because it can be applied for the wet delay as well as for the dry delay and has been popular among broad parts of the GPS user community in the past. Several stages of refinement exist for Saastamoinen's approach [16].

(4)

where,

z: apparent (“actual”) zenith angle at the surface (antenna),

ε: elevation angle (degree),

T0 : surface temperature in (K˚),

e0 : partial water vapor pressure in (mb).

2.2. Hopfield Model

Hopfield used real data covering the whole Earth. He has empirically found a representation of the wet refractivity as a function of the height h above the surface by,

where, T0 and e0 are measuring at the observation location and ε is the elevation angle.

2.3. Black Model

The wet mapping functions derived by Black are based on the quartic profiles developed by Hopfield and use the equivalent heights proposed by Hopfield [3]. This mapping function was recommended for elevation angles above 5˚ and the slant wet delay is [17]:

(7)

where:

e0 : partial water vapor pressure at site in [mb],

T0 : temperature at site in [K˚],

Hw: upper boundary height for the wet delay/height of the tropopause,

r: radial distance from earth center to site,

ε: elevation angle in [degrees],

The Hw in eq. (7) can be approximated with help of surface temperature t0 as:

(8)

and the scale factor Lc in eq, (7) is:

Lc = 0.167 - (0.076 + 0.00015 t0 ) .exp( -0.3 e).

(9)

2.4. Chao Wet Mapping Function

Marini gave the elevation angle dependence of the atmospheric delay in the form a continued fraction, in terms of the sine of elevation angle ε [18]:

In the Chao mapping functions, the continued fraction in eq. (10) is truncated to second order terms and the second order sin ε is replaced by tan ε, and the coefficients a and b are determined from empirical data. The wet mapping functions are expressed as follows [19]:

2.6. Herring Wet Mapping Function

Herring has developed both hydrostatic and wet mapping functions by fitting to radiosonde data from several North American stations ranging in geographic latitude from 27˚ N to 65˚ N for elevation angles down to 3˚. The mapping function’s coefficients depend linearly on surface temperature, the cosine of the station latitude, and the height of the station above the geoid. The expression for the mapping function is given below [9]:

(13)

where, a, b, and c are constants or linear functions, and can be determined by:

a = [0.583 - 0.011 cosø - 0.000052 H0 + 0.0014 (t0 - 10)].10-3

b = [1.402 - 0.102 cosø - 0.000101 H0 + 0.0020 (t0 - 10)].10-3

c = [45.85 - 1.91 cosø - 0.00129 H0 + 0.015 (t0 - 10)].10-3

where:

t0 : temperature at site in [°C]

φ: latitude of site

H0 : height of site above sea level in [km]

2.7. Niell Wet Mapping Function

The Neill mapping functions have no parameterization in terms of meteorological conditions, and they provide a better fit and give better accuracy for elevation angles down to 3˚. The form adopted for the mapping functions is the continued fraction with three coefficients (a, b, c). The wet mapping function depends only on the site latitude [13]. The expressions for the wet mapping functions are given below:

(14)

where: ε is the elevation angle, and for the wet mapping function, only an interpolation in latitude for each parameter is needed. The average values of awet, bwet and cwet and their amplitudes are given in (Table 1).

Table 1.Coefficients of the Niell wet mapping function.

Coefficients

ɸ = 15˚

ɸ = 30˚

ɸ = 45˚

ɸ = 60˚

ɸ = 75˚

a

5.8021897e-4

5.6794847e-4

5.8118019e-4

5.9727542e-4

6.1641693e-4

b

1.4275268e-3

1.5138625e-3

1.4572752e-3

1.5007428e-3

1.7599082e-3

c

4.3472961e-2

4.6729510e-2

4.3908931e-2

4.4626982e-2

5.4736038e-2

2.8. Moffett Wet Mapping Function

Simplified approximations of the Hopfield mapping functions are presented in [20]. These simplified mapping functions have been used extensively, as they depend on the elevation angle only as in eq. (15):

(15)

2.9. Black and Eisner MF

The Black and Eisner mapping function for the total delay is a further modification of Black's, and is expressed as a simple geometrical model (16), which depends on the elevation angle only, with one fitted parameter [14]:

(16)

This mapping function is claimed to be valid for elevation angles greater than 7˚.

2.10. UNBabc MF

Jiming Gue and Richard B. Langley were produced a mapping Function called (UNBabc) had a 3-term continued fraction form as in eq. (10) [8]. From a series of analyses, they concluded that parameter (a) is sensitive to the orthometric height (H) and latitude (φ) of the station where as parameters b and c could be represented by constants. The least-squares estimated parameters for the wet mapping function:

aw = 0.61120 - 0.035348 H - 0.01526 cos φ / 1000

bw = 0.0018576

cw = 0.062741

The mapping functions assessed in this study and the corresponding codes and references used in the tables of results are listed in (Table 2).

Table 2.Summary table of the main features of wet mapping functions.

Code

Reference

Impute parameters

εmin˚

SA

Saastamoinen (1987)

z, T0, eo

10˚

HO

Hopfield (1971)

ε, T0, eo

**

BL

Black (1978)

ε, T0, eo, r

5˚

CH

Chao (1972)

ε

10˚

IF

Ifadis (1986)

ε, t0, eo, P0

2˚

HE

Herring (1992)

ε, t0, φ, Ho

3˚

NI

Niell (1993)

ε, φ

3˚

MO

Moffett (1973)

ε

2˚

B & E

Black and Eisner (1984)

ε

7˚

UNBabc

Gue J. and Langley R. (2003),

ε, φ, H0

2˚

where: φ is the station latitude, H is the station height, r is the effective radius of the station, T0 is the temperature at site in K˚, t0 is the temperature at site in ˚C, e0 is the partial water vapor pressure in (mb), z is the zenith angle and ε is the elevation angle. ** Means that: not specified or valid for any elevation angle.

2. Delay modeling, it aims to determine wet tropospheric delay at different zenith angles for three stations Aswan, Helwan, and Mersa-Matrouh in different times of year in Egypt (Numerical Integration Model).

3. Assessment of prediction models or mapping functions, this stage aims to determine best models and mapping functions which present high accuracy in wet tropospheric delay prediction for Egypt.

3.2. Ray Trace Model

In order to evaluate mapping functions, we ray-traced the refractivity profiles computed from the pressure, temperature and relative humidity profiles from balloon flights launched from 5 radiosonde stations at the Egyptian stations in the south of Egypt, near the Mediterranean Sea, and near the Red Sea over a period of 5 years (2000-2005). Most of the stations launched radiosonde twice daily, every day of the year.

When ray-trace methods are used to calculate range and elevation-angle errors, integrals for the bending, electromagnetic ray path, and the straight line path or geometric path (or the sums to which these integrals are reduced by layering) must be calculated for each of the many data points of a satellite pass. The integrals, moreover, must be calculated with great precision since the range error is calculated by taking the difference between the electromagnetic path and the geometric path, two nearly equal numbers.

In the method given by Thayer [22], the number of calculations required over a satellite pass is considerably reduced since the coefficients used to evaluate the integrals are independent of the elevation angle of the ray. The elevation angle at each layer must be calculated for each new ray by using Snell's law, however, and the need for great precision remains.

Analysis data received from ray-traced model showed that, wet tropospheric delay in Egypt varies from 66.84 mm to 223.34 mm at zenith and slant wet delay increase slowly with high elevation angles from 30˚ – 90˚. At elevation angle 60˚, wet delay error varies from min value 77.18 mm at Aswan station in April to max value 276.34 mm at Marsa Matrouh station in July month. For elevation angle 30˚, it changes from min value 133.69 at Aswan station in April to max value 478.29 mm at Marsa Matrouh station in July.

For the elevation angles lower than 30˚ the slant wet delay errors are increased suddenly. For elevation angles 15, wet delay error is 258.31 mm at Aswan station in April (min value) and 921.26 mm in July at Helwan station (max value). Wet delay errors at elevation angle 10 change from 385.09 mm to 1366.49 mm. for elevation angle 7; it arrives 1688.86 mm as min value but arrives 2323.43 mm as max value at elevation angle 5. Analysis of data in Figs. (2-4) resulted that wet tropospheric delay in Egypt increases from south of Egypt to Cairo region and increases near the Mediterranean Sea. Wet delay in Egypt in summer months is more than other seasons in middle and north of Egypt but in Upper Egypt max wet delay values are measured in autumn months.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results of the assessment are summarized in Tables (3-7) and the mean biases and rms errors of these mapping functions are showed in (Figs. 5-9).

Table 3.Mean and rms of the wet tropospheric delay errors of the differences between the delays computed using the mapping functions and the ray trace results at 75˚ and 85˚ elevation angles.

MF

Elevation angle 85˚

Elevation angle 75˚

min

max

mean

rms

min

max

mean

rms

SA

4.83

16.70

11.26

3.20

4.98

17.25

11.60

3.89

HO

9.04

30.19

18.02

5.24

9.33

31.15

18.59

5.40

BL

1.18

-60.95

-19.18

7.15

1.22

-62.85

-19.78

7.38

CH

4.86

16.72

11.25

3.29

5.02

17.25

4.60

3.39

IF

4.86

16.71

11.25

3.28

5.02

17.24

11.60

3.39

HE

4.86

16.72

11.25

3.28

5.02

17.24

11.60

3.39

NI

4.94

16.91

11.44

3.34

5.08

17.45

11.80

3.45

M0

4.86

16.72

11.25

3.28

5.02

17.75

11.63

3.38

B&E

4.86

16.72

11.28

3.29

5.02

17.24

11.60

3.38

UNBabc

4.86

16.71

11.25

3.28

5.02

17.24

11.60

3.39

Table 4.Mean and rms of the wet tropospheric delay errors of the differences between the delays computed using the mapping functions and the ray trace results at 45˚ and 60˚ elevation angles.

MF

Elevation angle 60˚

Elevation angle 45˚

min

max

mean

rms

min

max

mean

rms

SA

5.55

19.23

12.93

3.78

6.80

23.49

15.78

4.61

HO

10.41

34.74

20.73

6.03

12.77

42.28

25.38

7.38

BL

1.35

-70.10

-22.07

8.23

1.60

-86.08

-27.03

10.08

CH

5.60

19.26

12.95

3.78

6.89

23.59

15.85

4.63

IF

5.60

19.25

12.95

3.78

6.90

23.61

15.87

4.63

HE

5.60

19.25

12.95

3.78

6.90

23.62

15.87

4.63

NI

5.68

19.48

13.17

3.85

7.00

23.89

16.14

4.72

M0

5.60

19.25

12.95

3.78

6.89

23.58

15.85

4.63

B&E

5.60

19.27

12.96

3.79

6.94

23.72

15.95

4.66

UNBabc

5.60

19.25

12.95

3.78

6.90

23.62

15.87

4.64

Table 5.Mean and rms of the wet tropospheric delay errors of the differences between the delays computed using the mapping functions and the ray trace results at 15˚ and 30˚ elevation angles.

MF

Elevation angle 30˚

Elevation angle 15˚

min

max

mean

rms

min

max

mean

Rms

SA

9.62

33.00

22.19

6.48

21.44

69.53

46.42

13.55

HO

18.14

60.19

35.93

10.46

35.93

116.39

69.48

20.21

BL

2.31

-121.18

-38.15

14.21

4.33

-232.23

-73.108

27.72

CH

9.83

33.39

22.47

6.56

19.89

64.60

43.49

12.69

IF

9.90

33.58

22.59

6.60

20.56

66.75

44.95

13.12

HE

9.90

33.59

22.60

6.60

20.58

66.87

44.95

13.12

NI

10.04

33.97

22.98

6.71

20.87

67.40

45.66

13.32

M0

9.83

33.37

22.45

6.56

19.92

64.69

43.56

12.71

B&E

10.06

34.02

22.91

6.69

22.02

70.69

47.74

13.92

UNBabc

9.91

33.60

22.61

6.60

20.67

66.88

45.07

13.15

Table 6.Mean and rms of the wet tropospheric delay errors of the differences between the delays computed using the mapping functions and the ray trace results at 9˚ and 10˚ elevation angles.

MF

Elevation angle 10˚

Elevation angle 9˚

min

max

mean

rms

min

max

mean

rms

SA

26.62

85.96

57.64

16.83

28.18

92.83

62.20

18.16

HO

55.67

173.77

103.79

30.19

62.77

193.03

115.32

33.54

BL

6.02

-341.55

-107.48

40.07

6.53

-377.01

-118.61

44.23

CH

31.73

96.38

64.93

18.93

36.16

106.80

72.09

21.01

IF

34.07

103.80

69.94

20.39

39.36

117.10

78.93

23.00

HE

34.16

104.27

70.00

20.42

39.49

117.76

79.03

23.05

NI

34.51

104.03

70.95

20.69

39.98

117.88

80.03

23.33

M0

31.95

85.7

65.38

19.06

35.65

107.99

72.80

21.22

B&E

38.99

117.11

79.38

23.12

46.06

135.25

91.80

26.73

UNBabc

34.41

104.22

70.33

20.50

39.81

117.66

79.46

23.15

Table 7.Mean and rms of the wet tropospheric delay errors of the differences between the delays computed using the mapping functions and the ray trace results at 5˚ and 7˚ elevation angles.

MF

Elevation angle 7˚

Elevation angle 5˚

min

max

mean

rms

min

max

mean

rms

SA

30.39

108.05

72.18

21.08

24.05

115.64

76.52

22.47

HO

84.86

248.50

148.60

43.21

118.36

350.53

210.13

61.06

BL

7.78

-474.64

-149.15

55.68

9.63

-633.12

-197.99

74.21

CH

50.45

137.16

92.51

26.94

83.21

190.63

128.85

37.44

IF

57.03

157.96

106.57

31.04

99.61

242.27

163.81

47.67

HE

57.37

159.49

106.92

31.16

100.69

246.85

165.22

48.13

NI

55.65

158.67

107.94

31.43

87.64

246.97

165.69

48.18

M0

46.26

140

94.49

27.50

66.64

200.90

136.01

39.51

B&E

70.89

195.52

133.20

38.76

134.74

359.11

231.47

67.35

UNBabc

57.94

159.08

107.63

31.33

101.82

245.10

166.42

48.38

Fig. (5).
Mean difference of the wet tropospheric delay errors between the delays computed using the mapping functions and the ray trace results for elevation angles from 30˚ to 90˚.

Fig. (6).
Mean difference of the wet tropospheric delay errors between the delays computed using the mapping functions and the ray trace results for elevation angles from 5˚ to 30˚.

Fig. (7).
Root mean square wet tropospheric delay errors about the mean of the differences between the delays computed using the mapping functions and the ray trace results for 30˚ and 60˚ elevation angles.

Fig. (8).
Root mean square wet tropospheric delay errors about the mean of the differences between the delays computed using the mapping functions and the ray trace results for 10˚ and 15˚ elevation angles.

Fig. (9).
Root mean square wet tropospheric delay errors about the mean of the differences between the delays computed using the mapping functions and the ray trace results for 5˚, 7˚ and 9˚ elevation angles.

For elevation angles above 30˚, virtually all mapping functions except Hopfield MF and Black wet delay model yield errors of less than 23 mm with rms errors no more than 7 mm. for elevation angle 30˚, mean error difference between Hopfield MF and ray-trace model arrives 35.93 mm with rms 10.46 mm but for Black wet delay model the mean difference is -38.15 mm and rms is 14.21 mm, means that the Hopfield model and Black wet delay model is not citable for atmospheric conditions of Egypt. From analysis of the figures, SA, CH, IF, HE, NI, MO, B & E and UNBabc mapping functions provide sub-centimeter accuracy for angles above 15˚ with minimum difference between them no more than 4 mm in mean difference and 2 mm in rms values. For elevation angles below 10˚, only a few of the functions are found to adequately meet the requirements currently imposed by space geodetic techniques.

Both the Hopfield and Black mapping functions differences with respect to ray tracing indicate some seasonal and/or latitudinal dependence. This might be caused by the use of nominal values for the tropopause height and temperature lapse rate. However, it seems likely that such nominal values will be used in space geodetic software since values of such parameters for specific sites and atmospheric conditions are generally not exactly known.

Table 8 summarizes the best five mapping functions based on the mean difference, rms and relative error as compared to the delay computed using ray trace model for Egypt. For this data set, the Saastamoinen, Chao, Moffett, Ifadis and Herring mapping functions provided the same level of accuracy for elevation angle more than 10˚. For elevation angle less than 10˚, as can be seen in Table 8b, and 8c, the Saastamoinen, Chao and Moffett functions consecutively place first, second and third, respectively. The results states that if information is available on the vertical temperature and water vapor pressure distribution in the atmosphere, the Saastamoinen mapping function should be used. Otherwise, one of the mapping functions derived by Chao and Moffet should be used.

Table 8.Rank of the five best mapping functions for Egypt, based on corresponding mean differences, rms and percent error with respect to those computed using the ray trace model.

a) 30˚ elevation angle

15˚ elevation angle

MF

Mean difference

rms

Percent error

rank

MF

Mean difference

rms

Percent error

rank

SA

22.19

6.48

8.24

1

CH

43.49

12.69

8.39

1

MO

22.45

6.56

8.34

2

MO

43.56

12.71

8.40

2

CH

22.47

6.56

8.35

3

IF

44.95

13.12

8.67

3

IF

22.59

6.60

8.39

4

HE

44.95

13.12

8.67

4

HE

22.60

6.60

8.40

5

UNB

45.07

13.15

8.70

5

b) 10˚ elevation angle

9˚ elevation angle

MF

Mean difference

rms

Percent error

rank

MF

Mean difference

rms

Percent error

rank

SA

57.64

16.83

7.50

1

SA

62.20

18.16

7.31

1

CH

64.93

18.93

8.45

2

CH

72.09

21.01

8.46

2

MO

65.38

19.06

8.51

3

MO

72.80

21.22

8.55

3

IF

69.94

20.39

9.10

4

IF

78.93

23.00

9.27

4

HE

70.00

20.42

9.11

5

HE

79.03

23.05

9.28

5

c) 7˚ elevation angle

5˚ elevation angle

MF

Mean difference

rms

Percent error

rank

MF

Mean difference

rms

Percent error

rank

SA

72.18

21.08

6.65

1

SA

76.52

22.47

5.13

1

CH

92.51

26.94

8.52

2

CH

128.85

37.44

8.63

2

MO

94.49

27.50

8.71

3

MO

136.01

39.51

9.11

3

IF

106.57

31.04

9.82

4

HE

165.22

48.13

10.97

4

HE

106.92

31.06

9.85

5

IF

163.81

47.67

11.07

5

The SA, CH, and Moffett mapping functions are quite accurate at very low elevation angles (less than 10˚) than the other mapping functions as compared to the ray tracing for the data set used. Therefore, for high-precision applications, it is recommended that the mapping function derived by Saastamoinen model be used as the first choice. The second choice will be the Chao or the Moffett mapping function.

CONCLUSION

From the presented results, we have concluded that the wet component of the slant tropospheric delay can be predicted with sub-millimeter accuracy, using the Saastamoinen model, provided accurate measurements of surface meteorological data or site dependent parameters are available.

In spite of the large number of mapping functions we have analyzed, only a small group meet the high standards of modern space geodetic data analysis: Chao, Moffett, Ifidas and Herring mapping functions.

For elevation angle above 15, SA, CH, MO, IF, HE, NI, UNB and B&E yield identical mean biases and the best total error performance. At lower elevation angles, SA, CH, MO, IF and HE are clearly superior. As regards the rms scatter about the mean, Saastamoinen mapping function performs the best for all elevation angle, followed closely by Chao and Moffett mapping functions respectively.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors confirm that this article content has no conflict of interest.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was not completed without the help of many other people. Firstly, my professors at public works department, they have provided me with more opportunities than I could have imagined. Thank you for believing in me, supporting me, and helping me along the way.

Also, the financial contribution of all members of the Egyptian Meteorological Authority for preparing, realizing and analyzing the measurements of temperature, pressure and humidity with different heights within their authority.

Finally, and most importantly, Sarah, for their love and support for all of my friends, students and laboratory for putting up with me while I prepared this paper.

Ifadis IM. The Atmospheric Delay of Radio Waves: Modeling the Elevation Dependence on a Global Scale School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, Goteborg, Sweden, Technical Report No 38L. 1986; p. 115.

About the Editor

Biography of Yoav Yair

Prof. Yoav Yair is the Dean of the School of Sustainability at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya (IDC). He holds the UNESCO chair in Sustainability in Israel. His main research fields include atmospheric electricity, thunderstorms and lightning (on Earth and other planets), space weather, climate effects of solar-terrestrial relations and transient luminous events (sprites). Prof. Yair earned his PhD in Atmospheric Sciences from Tel-Aviv University, 1995 (com laude). He is the author of several text books in meteorology and the atmospheric sciences and authored (and co-) over 75 refereed papers. He is also an expert on ICT and Learning Technologies, and served as head of the Center for Technology in Distance Education at the Open University of Israel (2004-2009), and Dean of Development and Learning Technologies at the Open University (2009-2012). From 2012-2014 he headed the Israeli national Inter-University Center for Learning Technologies.

Indexing Agencies

Press Release

Join Our Editorial Board

News release date: March 29, 2018

Description:

The Open Atmospheric Science Journal is an Open Access online journal, which publishes research articles, reviews, letters, case reports and guest-edited single topic issues in all areas of climate research and atmospheric science. Bentham Open ensures speedy peer review process and accepted papers are published within 2 weeks of final acceptance.

The Open Atmospheric Science Journal is committed to ensuring high quality of research published. We believe that a dedicated and committed team of editors and reviewers make it possible to ensure the quality of the research papers. The overall standing of a journal is in a way, reflective of the quality of its Editor(s) and Editorial Board and its members.

The Open Atmospheric Science Journal is seeking energetic and qualified researchers to join its editorial board team as Editorial Board Members or reviewers.

The essential criteria to become Editorial Board Members of The Open Atmospheric Science Journal are as follows:

Experience in climate research and atmospheric science with an academic degree.

At least 20 publication records of articles and /or books related to the field of climate research and atmospheric science or in a specific research field.

Proficiency in English language.

The Roles of Editorial Board Member are to:

Offer advice on journals’ policy and scope.

Submit or solicit at least one article for the journal annually.

Contribute and/or solicit Guest Edited thematic issues to the journal in a hot area (at least one thematic issue every two years).

Peer-review of articles for the journal, which are in the area of expertise (2 to 3 times per year).

If you are interested in becoming our Editorial Board member, please submit the following information to info@benthamopen.net. We will respond to your inquiry shortly.

Email subject: Editorial Board Member Application

Your name

Email address

Telephone

City, State, Country

Name of your institution

Department or Division

Website of institution

Your title or position

Your highest degree

Complete list of publications and h-index

Interested field(s)

Testimonials

"Open access will revolutionize 21st century knowledge work and accelerate the diffusion of ideas and evidence that support just in time learning and the evolution of thinking in a number of disciplines."

. —Daniel Pesut. (Indiana University School of Nursing, USA).

"It is important that students and researchers from all over the world can have easy access to relevant, high-standard and timely scientific information. This is exactly what Open Access Journals provide and this is the reason why I support this endeavor."

"Publishing research articles is the key for future scientific progress. Open Access publishing is therefore of utmost importance for wider dissemination of information, and will help serving the best interest of the scientific community."

. —Patrice Talaga. (UCB S.A., Belgium).

"Open access journals are a novel concept in the medical literature. They offer accessible information to a wide variety of individuals, including physicians, medical students, clinical investigators, and the general public. They are an outstanding source of medical and scientific information."

. —Jeffrey M. Weinberg. (St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center, USA).

"Open access journals are extremely useful for graduate students, investigators and all other interested persons to read important scientific articles and subscribe scientific journals. Indeed, the research articles span a wide range of area and of high quality. This is specially a must for researchers belonging to institutions with limited library facility and funding to subscribe scientific journals."

. —Debomoy K. Lahiri. (Indiana University School of Medicine, USA).

"Open access journals represent a major break-through in publishing. They provide easy access to the latest research on a wide variety of issues. Relevant and timely articles are made available in a fraction of the time taken by more conventional publishers. Articles are of uniformly high quality and written by the world's leading authorities."

. —Robert Looney. (Naval Postgraduate School, USA).

"Open access journals have transformed the way scientific data is published and disseminated: particularly, whilst ensuring a high quality standard and transparency in the editorial process, they have increased the access to the scientific literature by those researchers that have limited library support or that are working on small budgets."

. —Richard Reithinger. (Westat, USA).

"Not only do open access journals greatly improve the access to high quality information for scientists in the developing world, it also provides extra exposure for our papers."

. —J. Ferwerda. (University of Oxford, UK).

"Open Access 'Chemistry' Journals allow the dissemination of knowledge at your finger tips without paying for the scientific content."

. —Sean L. Kitson. (Almac Sciences, Northern Ireland).

"In principle, all scientific journals should have open access, as should be science itself. Open access journals are very helpful for students, researchers and the general public including people from institutions which do not have library or cannot afford to subscribe scientific journals. The articles are high standard and cover a wide area."

. —Hubert Wolterbeek. (Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands).

"The widest possible diffusion of information is critical for the advancement of science. In this perspective, open access journals are instrumental in fostering researches and achievements."

. —Alessandro Laviano. (Sapienza - University of Rome, Italy).

"Open access journals are very useful for all scientists as they can have quick information in the different fields of science."

. —Philippe Hernigou. (Paris University, France).

"There are many scientists who can not afford the rather expensive subscriptions to scientific journals. Open access journals offer a good alternative for free access to good quality scientific information."

"Open access journals have become a fundamental tool for students, researchers, patients and the general public. Many people from institutions which do not have library or cannot afford to subscribe scientific journals benefit of them on a daily basis. The articles are among the best and cover most scientific areas."

. —M. Bendandi. (University Clinic of Navarre, Spain).

"These journals provide researchers with a platform for rapid, open access scientific communication. The articles are of high quality and broad scope."

. —Peter Chiba. (University of Vienna, Austria).

"Open access journals are probably one of the most important contributions to promote and diffuse science worldwide."

"Open access journals make up a new and rather revolutionary way to scientific publication. This option opens several quite interesting possibilities to disseminate openly and freely new knowledge and even to facilitate interpersonal communication among scientists."

. —Eduardo A. Castro. (INIFTA, Argentina).

"Open access journals are freely available online throughout the world, for you to read, download, copy, distribute, and use. The articles published in the open access journals are high quality and cover a wide range of fields."

. —Kenji Hashimoto. (Chiba University, Japan).

"Open Access journals offer an innovative and efficient way of publication for academics and professionals in a wide range of disciplines. The papers published are of high quality after rigorous peer review and they are Indexed in: major international databases. I read Open Access journals to keep abreast of the recent development in my field of study."

. —Daniel Shek. (Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong).

"It is a modern trend for publishers to establish open access journals. Researchers, faculty members, and students will be greatly benefited by the new journals of Bentham Science Publishers Ltd. in this category."